Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal610,56CWN264
ORDERDas, J.1. This rule was issued on 18-5-1951, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be revoked or cancelled or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus or in the nature of Prohibition should not issue to the opposite parties prohibiting them or directing them to forbear from giving effect to the said orders complained of or why such other appropriate order or orders under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be made as to this court may seem fit and proper.2. The orders complained of are dated 18-11-1950 and 13-11-1950. By the order dated 18-11-1950, the petitioner was informed by a communication received from the District Transportation Officer that the petitioner has been removed from his service. By the order dated the 13th of December 1950, passed by the District Transportation Officer the petitioner was informed that the matter of his removal has been finally heard and that the appeal preferred by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(3)CHN857
Dipankar Datta, J.1. Rizwanur Rahman (hereafter Riz), since deceased, son and brother of the petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, was laid to rest in September last. The suspicious circumstances in which he died, the role of the State Police agencies in investigating the cause of his death, the conduct of certain police officers of Kolkata Police both before and after his death, alleged involvement of his father-in-law Ashok Todi (respondent No. 12) and his uncles-in-iaw Anil Saraogi (respondent No. 13) and Pradeep Todi (not a party to the petition) in connection with his unnatural death, investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter the CBI) being directed by this Court - all these and much more, have exercised thoughtful consideration of this Court on the face of eloquent arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the State, the accused police officers and the respondent No. 12 and learned Counsel for the CBI and the respondent No. 13, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 81CWN699,[1978]114ITR379(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This appeal is against tl5e judgment andorder of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. dated November 27, 1975 [Cachar PlywoodLtd. v. Income-tax Officer : [1977]109ITR470(Cal) whereby the connectedrule was discharged.2. The petitioner-appellant is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was being duly assessed till the assessment year 1969-70 by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Karimganj. The Central Board of Direct Taxes passed the following order in respect of the assessee on December 23, 1972.'FNo. 185/141/72-IT(AI)Central Board of Direct Taxes,New Delhi, 23-12-72.OEDER 3. No. 572-J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 127 of the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby transfers the case, the particulars of which are mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule hereto annexed from the Income-tax Officer mentioned in column 4 to the Income-tax Officer mentioned in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal704
Das Gupta, C.J. 1. The orders against which this appeal is directed were made by Sinha J., on an application by the Manager of the Purna Theatre and the executor to the estate of Manomoy Banerjee, who is carrying on business under the name of Purna Theatre. As people who frequent cinema houses are aware, advertisements are displayed on the screen during the usual hours of display of pictures. According to the present appellants, the owners of the theatre are bound in law to take out licenses in respect of the display of such advertisements on payment of money in accordance with the rules made by the Corporation under Section 229 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The owners of the Purna Theatre having refused to take out such licenses, the Deputy License Officer of the Corporation wrote to the Manager on 5-1-1956 stating that action would have to be taken within the specified date for enforcement of law in respect of this. On the 2nd of February 1958 the License Inspector issued a no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal591
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing certain orders made by the respondents refusing to grant import licences for cloves and betel-nuts and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to deal with and consider certain applications of the petitioner's firm for import licences for cloevs and betel-nuts, on merits and in accordance with law.2. The petitioner No. 1 Haji Sattar has been carrying on the business inter alia of importers and wholesale dealers for the last 17 years underthe name and style, of Haji Sattar Haji Pir Mohammed. The principal place of business of the said firm is at 23, Amratola Lane Calcutta. The petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the said premises and while in Calcutta he resides at the said premises. The said firm has branches at Bombay, Madras, Kanpur, Agra, Delhi, Bhatinda, 'Vizianagaram, Cochin, Calicut, Jamnagar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A. 3306 of 2016 E.C. No.487 of 2013 SLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. Vs. LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. For the Award-Holder : Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv., Mr. Asit Dey, Adv. For the Judgment-Debtor/Applicant : Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv., Mr. S. Sarkar, Adv., Mrs. S. Mukhopadhyay, Adv., Mr. T. Aich, Adv. Hearing Concluded On :10.08.2017. Judgment On :22. d August, 2017. Soumen Sen, J.:- The judgment-debtor is the applicant. The judgment-debtor has filed this application ostensibly under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 but essentially for having a second look at the foreign award, notwithstanding an earlier order dated 4th September, 2014, by which the question of maintainability including enforceability of the foreign award was decided. The earlier challenge was o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A.No.237 of 2016 C.S.No.7 of 2016 SKIPPER LIMITED VS. AKASH BANSAL & ORS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Adv., Prithviraj Sinha, Adv., Siddhartha Das, Adv., Phiroze Edulji, Adv., Abhishek Bhutoria, Adv., Sourish Banerjee, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv., Mr. D. Mukherjee, Adv., Mrs. Shomrita Das, Adv. Hearing Concluded On :19. 07.2017. Judgment On :9. h August, 2017. Soumen Sen, J.:- The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of the word mark BANSAL.. The petitioner claims that petitioner has been manufacturing, selling and marketing metal pipes manufactured under the trade mark BANSAL. with the mark SKIPPER. suffixed thereto from 1981 without any interruption. The petitioners turn over during the last financial year was Rs.1300 crores. The petitioner applied for registration of w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Judgement APO NO.308 OF2016IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE .NAVEEN GOEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PORT) AND ANR. BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 10th February, 2017 Ms.PAYEL SAHA,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT MR.J.P.KHAITAN, SR.ADVOCATE, AMICUS CURIAE ANIRUDDHA BOSE.J : This matter was listed today primarily for considering an objection note of the Stamp Reporter, High Court, Original Side in relation to registering the stay petition of the appellant taken out in connection with the appeal. This appeal is against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The stay petition is supported by an affidavit affirmed before the Attache(Passport).High Commission of India, Singapore on 14th December 2016. It is for this reason the department had declined to accept the petition for registering the same for subsequent li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
FORM No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: THE HONBLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE W.P. No.164 of 2013 Satyanarain Fatehpuria Vs. CESC Ltd. & Ars. Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. Pratyush Patwari Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Subir Kumar Sanyal Mr. Ratul Biswas Judgment on:8. h April, 2015. ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.:- 1. A final order of assessment made by the Assessing Officer-IV of the CESC Ltd. on 14th November, 2012 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is assailed by the petitioner in this proceeding. In this order, the writ petitioner, who is a domestic consumer of CESC Ltd. has been found to have made unauthorized use of electricity and the petitioners dues on that count has been assessed to be Rs.2,34,150.75 and Rs.22,945.46 for electricity charges and electricity duty respectively. Such dues has been computed on the basis of unauthorized use 365 days preceding the date of disconnection. Supply to the petitioner was discon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Mr.Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Mr.Arijit Banerjee APO360of 2013 CS212of 2013 UCO Bank -Vs.Saumyendra Roy Chaudhury & ORS.For the appellant : Mr.Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Debdutta Sen, Adv.Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.For respondents 5, 6, 7 : Mr.Bimal Chatterjee, Ld Adv.Gen. For respondent No.1 Mr.S.N. Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.: Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Adv.Mr.Siddhartha Sharma, Adv.Mr.Tarun Aich, Adv.Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 18th, 19th and 20th March, Heard on : 2014 Judgment On : 15/05/2014 Arijit Banerjee, J. The rules and regulations of UCO Bank, the appellant herein provided for representation of the share-holders on the Board of Directors of the Bank in the form of share-holder directORS.The decision of the Nomination Committee rejecting the nomination of the respondent No.1 for election to the Board of the Bank in the category of a s...
Tag this Judgment!